Clarity First and Foremost!

(On the QUESTION of UNITY)

Published:Trudovaya PravdaNo. 30, July 2, 1914.

      Published according to the text inTrudovaya Pravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages544-547.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

1. PEOPLE HOLDING TWO OPINIONS

Canpeople obviously incapable of taking serious problems
seriously, themselves be taken seriously? It is difficult to do so,
comrades, very difficult! But the question which certain people cannot
treat seriously is in itself so serious that it will do no harm to examine
even patently frivolous replies to it.

Thisserious question is that of the unity of the Russian working-class
movement. Contributors toYedinstvoare people incapable of
treating this question seriously.

Hereis the first example. In issue No. 4,Yedinstvohas
published an interview with deputy Chkheidze. The editors ofYedinstvohave expressed the hope that this interview will help
“to unite the Russian working class”. Very good. But let us see what
Chkheidze has said about the organisational and tactical questions that
interest the Russian workers.

Chkheidzehas expressed himself as follows: “I am personally in full
agreement with the views on tactics and organisation lately expounded in
the press by Comrade An.”

Whatviews has Comrade An lately expounded in the press?

What,for example, has he said about the views of the Luchists,aliasthe liquidators?

An,a prominent Menshevik and opponent of Pravdism, “has lately
expounded in the press” the view that “the liquidators are steering a
course towards reforms”, that theirviews on the “underground”, strikes, “uncurtailed slogans”, and so
forth, are inseparably connected with their general reformism; that if the
workers heeded their advice, the workers in the provinces would have to
refrain from organising strikes, and so forth.

Theseviews have indicated that An is beginning to free himself from
captivity to the liquidators, and we have welcomed this.

NowChkheidze says that he is “in full” agreement with these
views. We are very glad to hear it. An understanding of the nature of
liquidationism and emphatic renunciation of it is the beginning of wisdom,
is it not? And we would be ready to welcome deputy Chkheidze’s long-delayed
awakening to the role played by liquidationism as a trend.

Butserious questions should be treated seriously, and it will be
useful therefore to examine, not only Chkheidze’s statements inYedinstvo, but his actions as well.

Thereply of the Social-Democratic Duma group (of which deputy
Chkheidze is chairman) to the terms of unity proposed by the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group might have been of vast importance to thecauseof unity.

Thatreply appeared not very long ago inNasha Rabochaya
Gazeta, issue No. 2, in the form of an appeal to the workers.

Inthis appeal to the workers, deputy Chkheidze and his fellow-thinkers
reply, among others, to the question of their attitude towards
liquidationism as represented by the latter’s organ, at that timeSevernaya Rabochaya Gazeta.

“Asfor the MarxistSevernaya Rabochaya
   Garcia,” deputy Chkheidze and his friends write, “our attitude
   towards it can be defined ascomplete solidarity with its trend.”

“Asfor the MarxistSevernaya Rabochaya
   Garcia,” deputy Chkheidze and his friends write, “our attitude
   towards it can be defined ascomplete solidarity with its trend.”

Thus,in an official appeal to the workers, deputy Chkheidze has
announced his “complete solidarity” with the trend of the
liquidationist newspaper, and in the interview published inYedinstvohe has stated that he is in “lull agreement”
with the views of An, who has criticised this newspaper as an organ of the
reformists who are hampering the present-day working-class movement.

Issuch a thing permissible? Does this indicate a serious attitude
towards a serious question? Has deputy Chkheidze anything serious to say on
the question of unity with the liquidators, considering that in the space
of two months he has contrived to express two diametrically opposite views
on the liquidators?

But,we may be told, when the “Open Reply of the Social-Democratic
Group” was being drafted, deputy Chkheidze was probably not yet aware of
An’s views, and was there fore unable as yet to appreciate the
significance of liquidationism.

Alas,this will not be in keeping with the truth, for An’s article was
published long before the “Open Reply” appeared.

Anotherthing that must be borne in mind is this.

Severaldays after An’s articles appeared, L. M. inSevernaya
Rabochaya Gazeta, came out strongly in defence of the liquidators
against An’s criticism. And what about Chkheidze? Did he utter a single
word in defence of views with which he now appears to be in “full
agreement”? No. Chkheidze kept quiet, while deputy Tulyakov, a
fellow-member of his group, chose that very moment to come forward as
publisher ofNasha Rabochaya Gazeta.

Werepeat: is it permissible for the Chairman of the Social-Democratic
group in the Duma to adopt such an attitude towards a question that is
agitating the broad masses of the workers and has been repeatedly discussed
at meetings, conferences, etc.? Has Chkheidze made any contribution to the
solution of the problem of unity? Is this not an attempt to obscure the
question of unity by means of parochial diplomatic considerations designed
to save the liquidators?

Thisis the common failing of our “uniters”: they cannot give a clear
answer to questions of the day; they do not themselves know what they want.

Onething is clear from their writings: they want to save the
liquidators, and must therefore avoid clarity and precision in the
formulation and solution of problems.

Tothe liquidators clarity and precision are the most dangerous things
at the present time. Other articles inYedinstvobring this home
to us still more forcibly.

Butthe workers want clarity, and they will get it, for they want to
build up the unity of their organisation, not on the basis of diplomacy and
equivocation, but on the basis of a precise appraisal of the political
significance of the different “trends”. People who have two or even more
opinions on this question are, poor counsellors.